New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-02-02
O'NEIL FOUND GUILTY, TOO.
Confined from First Paae.

| Confined from First Page.
reasonable Doubt As to the weight be given to the
testimony of Fugnf and Duffy it is fair to say thas
conviction can be had on the testimony Vi
as tends convict defendant OF the crime The cor
robOraon required need not he that OF another uni
peachable witness testifyDg 10 the direct matter ~ ~
sac. 1t may be by crcumstantal as well as by dlrect
evidence and necessarily in such case as this IL ins
Now, about the testimony Of Duffy and Fullgraf, the
Code provides for the taking Of snc testimony Ceary
should received with caution is not TO be
disregarded merely because jurors may have no re-
for such witnesses suppose q juror. after hearing all
the evidence. said am satisfied that the defendant Is
guilty but the evidence is tainted and do not choose 70
find verdict >on IT," Such Juror would violate DIS
oath and the law when we arrive at the truth no mas
ter what devious methods the evidence may take IL
duty to declare il. When accomplce outside OF
the case has made opposite declarations to those maze IN
the court this IL equally For those guilty or such
crime to about declaring their innocence or even 10
jury say whether one OF them the truth in
such paper the stand. There IL another way tht
the truth fasty of the statement OF an ac-
swear falsely about an isolated fact than about long
FaIa and Duffy tell ms an yV' elaborate ate, story
aud consider all the facts to the probability that IL Is
they mote to inure this defendant by their evidence
Inc claim Of the prosecution Is that they denied "YS
have the liberty to DISREGARD this evidence but this Is the
liberty, and not license. to do right under the law
The class OF evidence is that which relates to this
witness Metz After all that has been said about her evil
she saw these going into McLoughn's house That
Is all there Is TO 1t. regret that 20 much has
OF the attack the DisirctA attorneys Office
But 1t is here and must DO considered 1t is affirmative
evidence that she recognized the defendant Now dld sho
identify ruthfuy this defendant either OF the ohers
II she identified any her testimony has bearing on ,hg
the testimony OF Fugraf and Duffy Witnesses were
brought who testimony that such meetings took
place The question Is whether her testimony does not
ead 10 corroboate the testimony of Eullgraf and Duffy
that there such meetings. even II not to the extent
1
about what took place in the Court OF General Sessions
The evidence about there being no Aldermen
and April Is merely cha 1t Is only In regard to the TWO
mOny Metz true Is I've considered. We know
that McIOughlin slept in his house in August and Is
New-York In June. The testimony OF Mrs. McLoughlin
ana Miss Fox can only be considered so FAR as they could
have known whether those two meetings took place.
. The testimony OF UNeii, Cdeary ana Nth ie my
consideration that they are under Indictment.
Evidence OF previous good charac er IN some cases
weighs much and In others docs not weigh III must
be taken here in connection with the circumstances OF
the crime charged
the Broadway franchise could be sold for Sioooo0o
me P'o'sGuGn lain ,nat I'M T "a, e o the Alder
men from passing the bill over the veto The next we
hear Of the settlement OF that suit is in the hands OF M
Alexander. the lawyer OF the Broadway surface Railroad
has been testified that MoOney directed at the meet
Ing the obtaining OF more votes
ia the BOar il they were needed Where did Mooney
the documents which acted uponf We nave the
spectacle OF the promoters OF the scheme through Inef
attorneys preparing the documents for the Board 10 act
upon. MOOney drew the paper for the Aldermen 20
sign calling special meeting. Who Issued the cam
There evidence that MOlOney had any especial In
stucton from any single Alderman to Issue IT, rake tue
record evidence IL regard 10 the passage or the measure
and ask where the whole does tho finger pOint Does
IL prove the allegations OF this indictment In con-
necuon with the evidence OF Fullgran and Duiy
Consider all the evidence for the prosecution ana then
ask yourselves whether the should DE reasohario
doubt. II you have IL ~ your duty tO convict lHs
defendant II You have any, II Is your duty 10 acqt
viii only in conclusion. that IT. on tue Wh0!e cIuence
you believe him innocent you must say so ulnnenceu
by any camor prejudice. II, on the other hand you
believe him guilty IL would be a sad condition OF affairs
II you did not fcaressy say so. For. gentlemen there
something worse than brbetaking. ana that -
where Jury satisfied or the quit OF adctcndaht anu
hcstates pronounce him guilty. When such feeling
has eaten like caukcrWOrm into the hearts OF men, so
the tins with special reference 10 iiS
case that you should render fearless verdict Is the
right OF the defendant well "a OF the people
the judge spoke in easy rsationa ono for an
hour and a quarter and when he finished the counsel Tor
the defence made twenty three propositions requests
10 charge Most Of these covered about tho
same ground ~ had been touched upon
by the JUDGE aud no 50 decided he refused 10 charge
that l. any witness hnd committed perjury In any one
point before during the present trial tie testimony
be utterly disregaried. This proposition. made by
Mr. Brooke was conveyed in O variety Of ways, and
In each instance the Judge emphaticaly denied
the request charge and exceptions taken Then
Mr. Mitchell made the prop sition in different
language aud supplemented 1t with the request that
the jury reminded OF the fact that the defendant had
been indicted by the Grand Jury the testimony OF
Waite In June lnst and that 1t insufficient
evidence. This characterized by the Judge an eH-
raordnary request since the proceedings before the
Grand Jury had not been made part OF the evidence In
this and the jury had no knowledge OF them.